Monday, February 15, 2010
Science, Power, and Society
So, I am currently reading this interesting book. Its called Under The Dome by Stephen King. Its about a small town in Maine called Chester's Mill that is suddenly encapsulated by this dome thing, no one can come in and no one can come out, but the barrier is completely invisible. They are completely seperated from the rest of the world, besides use of cell phones and internet. Also, sound passes through the dome as well. But anyway, what I find interesting is the different elements of power in this novel. You have a guy who is extremely power thirsty named Jim Rennie who isn't exactly book smart he's really just a car salesman whose really good at blackmailing people and scaring them into doing what he wants, there is another guy named Dale Barbara who is good at buying his time and calculating his next move in order to undermine Jim Rennies power, and finally there are these strange creatures that put the Dome there in the first place with their super advance technology and sit around and laugh at all of the inhabitants while riots and murder become the norm in a once small town. So it begs the question, who really holds the power in this situation? The people with the science, the man who takes advantage of people and situations, or the man who can use his logic and reasoning to calculate the best way to gain power for himself. How is power defined by society? Does science necessarily equal power? Why is the term knowledge equals power so widely accepted? Do you think this statement is accurate? How does the objectivity/subjectivity of science tie into this issue? What does the value placed on knowledge say about our society? And finally, What other books have ya'll read that highlights different veiws on this issue? These were just somethings I was wondering about while I was reading this book. It was just an example so feel free to use your own. I wanted to get ya'lls opinions. One book that I can think of that has a pretty similar concept as The Lost World & Under the Dome is Fahrenheit 451. Ok....I have finished writing my novel of a blog now...sooo...comments? Ideas?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
OK, to answer your 8 questions one by one:
ReplyDeletePower is a very difficult thing to define, especially when the viewpoints are relative. However, among the choices Carleigh lists, I think all of them hold power in a certain way. Science opens new vistas of ideas and information, so the people with science would hold an ideological advantage over their adversaries. The man who takes advantage of people and situations can be described as being 'resourceful' rather than 'powerful' but then, he is powerful by virtue of being resourceful. The man who uses logic and reasoning to gain power is pretty much the same guy as above - both take advantage of people, things and situations - the only difference is *what* they take advantage of.
Power as a definition is very fluid - the same fluid nature of society. Over time, societies evolve - old beliefs fade away, replaced by new values and ideas. Earlier, violence was considered a form of power - so military might, firepower, muscular strength etc. were highly regarded and people possessing those qualities were considered powerful. As we have evolved, violence now is generally regarded as a sign of weakness... to be replaced by intelligence. So today education is considered a powerful tool, governments try to ensure their populace gets the best education possible and so on. However there is one definition of power that is constant: the ability to influence outcomes in a situation. As outcomes are dependent on differing parameters, the criteria for power also shifts.
So building on from what I just said: science necessarily equals power only in the context of today. Science is important today - powerful nations are beginning to be defined as those with the most varied skill set and expertise, innovation and technology. All these are offshoots of science, hence the phrase 'science equals power' can be interpreted to be true.
Again, 'knowledge equals power' holds true in today's society only because we regard knowledge as important. This is a result of centuries of philosophical thinking... even the successful military generals in history recognized that knowing one's enemy won half the battle. Today governments spend a significant amount of their budget on intelligence operations and reconnaissance and as we move toward an era of asymmetric warfare, it is even more likely that security of a nation will depend on safeguarding information/knowledge rather than physical assets.
(continued...)
In the broadest sense, science (which is actually derived from the Latin word scientia meaning 'knowledge') is any systematic knowledge-base or prescriptive practice that is capable of resulting in a prediction or predictable type of outcome. This definition applies to the natural sciences (physics, astronomy, biology, etc.), social/behavorial sciences (economics, political science, psychology, etc.) as well as applied sciences (engineering, health sciences, information technology, etc.).
ReplyDeleteSo if you believe that science as a whole is objective in nature (as I do), you agree with me in that it is a continuing effort to discover and increase human knowledge. The question arises here is why? Well, there are many elements to it: power, evolution, necessity/survival, etc. If you believe that science is pursued for power alone (and that's a valid belief) then yes, science is subjective. But I personally think that's narrowing the scope of science in a big way.
Next, Carleigh asks what does the importance of knowledge given by society today say about it? That's a good question. Again, my answer here follows from what I stated earlier - as we evolve, our mindset, ideas, beliefs and practices evolve as well. Throughout documented history so far, knowledge, or the ability to search, evaluate and document information, has repeatedly been proved to be superior to all other human assets. As humans, we have come to realize this slowly, but today it is universally accepted. If for some absurd reason, in the distant future, events so occurred which showed that the ability to rap was superior to all other human assets (don't laugh), perhaps the universally accepted motto might be 'rapping is power'.
Finally, there is a book I've read that is very similar in concept to Under The Dome. It is called "Spin" and is authored by Robert Charles Wilson. It is a first-person narrative of three friends from the present day as teenagers and follows them as they grow up. At the beginning of the book, there is a huge bubble-like sphere placed around the earth by some mysterious entity which prevents the people on the planet to see the moon and stars... they can only see a fake image of the sun. Also it is later discovered that time is slowed down inside - for every earth-seconds, the stars and galaxies outside the bubble age by 3.17 years. The people soon come to realize that at this rate the sun would die out in about 40 earth-years. Then the human response to their predicament is documented and I'm not gonna spoil it for you, but you wouldn't be surprised by the things humans can come up with to ensure their own survival. The events that take place on a global scale: post-apocalyptic dystopia related stuff like quasi-religionism, revolutions, etc. (that's a lot of words, I know) present a very tantalizing concept. If I didn't know Stephen King and his reputation, I would have speculated that he might have been "inspired" by Spin - based on what Carliegh has summarized - since Spin came out in 2005 and Under the Dome came out last year. But that's another story.
ok...I didn't mean everyone needed to answer every question lol although I'm glad you took the time to do so...I did ask a lot of questions..I was just trying to facilitate connecting the ideas we study in class to society and other stuff we read...I don't want everyone to feel like they have to write an essay...it was just some stuff I was thinking about. Totally open ended here.
ReplyDeleteOK anyway...responding to your post Hasan. I hadn't thought of the fact that that the two men use the same way of thinking. I guess it the context of the book they seem like two totally different people because one is fundamentally evil while the other is fundamentally good. I guess its all in the way the method of thinking is implemented. Jim Rennie uses intimidation and blackmailing while Dale Barbara's approach is a little less in your face.
ReplyDeleteAlso, this is my first Stephen King book and based on a bunch of reviews I've read it apparently isn't at all as good as his other books, a lot of Stephen King fans were apparently disappointed so maybe he did get the idea from the book your talking about. Apparently a lot of his fans feel he has gone down hill since his accident or whatever. But I really like it! Its like over 1000 pages but it goes by really fast its an interesting story at least
This is certainly a very interesting dilemma since several groups seem to have power over one another in some way or another. However I firmly believe that "science equals power," which does NOT mean that possessing technologically-advanced items (ie a nice computer) one gains absolute power. Rather it should mean that by thinking “scientifically” (making rational decisions based upon the past experiences of humanity to find the truth) one will eventually possess greater power. Since Jim Rennie seems to be motivated by pure lust and the “strange creatures” seem to only possess better technology, I foreshadow that Dale Barbara will eventually possess greater power.
ReplyDeleteConventionally power can be classified into three categories: economic, military, and political. Coincidentally, countries that seem to better educate their citizens (teaching to think “scientifically”) seem to have greater power in all three of these categories compared to countries that do no educate their citizens as well.
“The Prince” authored by Niccolò Machiavelli and published in 1532 is an excellent-yet controversial book that explores this subject.
I kind of think science as two-sided and it is up to human beings to decide how to use science in the way they want. Someone can make a robot and conqure the earth, but at the same time other people can use science to purify the earth and do some environmental friendly things. Science itself does not strickly tie to power, because people may or maynot use science in this way. Just seeing science being used as a tool to dominate other people does not imply that science is evil in nature. Same thing as one cannot say pencil is bad because it can hurt you... Therefore, I always think one should not inteperate science as something subjectively.
ReplyDeleteI think what Zihao said brings us back to the science as subjective vs. objective debate. While I have clearly stated my position (science is objective), Zihao seems to agree on this, but Aaron may not... judging by his comments last week.
ReplyDeleteTo answer your first question carleigh, I believe that is the man who can manipulate others that holds the power, because he can manipulate the smarter guy into buying him time and the people with the technology into using it to his advantage. To answer your second question, in todays societies, power can most simply be defined by who has the most advanced way of terminating other countries or races. Although this is a very primal aspect of power in itself I believe that in todays society it is true. However science is needed to create such a weapon and therefore it could also be made as a point that science is power in societies today.I think that the knowledge equals power quote is slightly accurate because if you know something...persay how to conquer another country, then you have the power over that country, however it is not exactly true all the time because there are certain skills or pieces of knowledge that don't give any power in todays societies at all. The one main example that I have read in a piece of literature is the science fiction novel Ender's Game, which features a boy named Ender who is smaller and considered an "invalid third child" in the setting of the book, however he proves to be the best commander once he is sent to a military space station at the age of 13 I believe. But the point is that he uses his mind to win all of the battles in the school and eventually to win the "Final Game" in which he finishes and terminates a whole race of "bugs" and in this case knowledge of certain strategies as well as the invention of his own strategies necessarily guarantees him the right to win, however the knowledge alone wouldn't win him anything without creativity.
ReplyDelete